In re Breast Implant Cases, 92 CV 7821 (S.D.N.Y.)
Decision Date | 23 October 1996 |
Docket Number | 92 CV 9496 (S.D.N.Y.),94 CV 477 (E.D.N.Y.),No. 92 CV 7821 (S.D.N.Y.),94 CV 7731 (S.D.N.Y.),92 CV 9471 (S.D.N.Y.),94 CV 3349 (E.D.N.Y.),94 CV 1145 (E.D.N.Y.),94 CV 3293 (E.D.N.Y.),96 BI 1 (S.D.N.Y.),93 CV 159 (E.D.N.Y.),93 CV 5697 (E.D.N.Y.),92 CV 7821 (S.D.N.Y.) |
Citation | 942 F.Supp. 958 |
Parties | In re BREAST IMPLANT CASES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Perry Weitz, Robert Gordon, Denise Dunleavy, Mike Williams, Weitz & Luxenberg, New York City, for Plaintiffs.
Mary A. Wells, Wells, Anderson & Race, L.L.C., Denver, CO, William B. Griffin, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison L.L.P., New York City, George H. Link, Debra E. Pole, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for Baxter. Tamar P. Halpern, Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Buffalo, New York, Joseph M. Price, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, MN, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Pursley, Howell, Lowery & Meeks, Atlanta, GA, David P. Herrick, Jenkens & Gilchrist, Dallas, TX, Arvin Maskin, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City for 3M.
Eric M. Kraus, James T. Conlon, Sedgwick, Detert Moran & Arnold, New York City, Nathan Schactman, Jack Flaherty, McCarter & English, Newark, NJ, for Bristol Mayer.
Before BAER, District Judge, and WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:
AMENDED PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM
Typical of the breast implant cases pending in the two courts is the one briefly described below. Defendants have moved for summary judgment and for various in limine rulings, including exclusion of testimony of plaintiffs' primary experts. Defendants have also opposed the courts' suggestion that there be severance of issues. The motion for summary judgment must be denied with leave to renew. Severance must be granted.
Plaintiffs Anna and Joseph Nyitray sue defendants Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International Inc. alleging severe and permanent injuries resulting from exposure to silicone in Ms. Nyitray's silicone gel breast implants. 93 CV 159 (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint, as in related cases, alleges numerous causes of action, including negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of various consumer protection statutes, and loss of consortium. They claim a variety of silicone-related illnesses, some of which can be denominated as "local injuries" and others as "systemic diseases." Plaintiffs' local injuries allegedly include pain and suffering arising from capsular contracture, rupture, leakage, migration, granulomas, infection and temporary or permanent disfigurement. Plaintiffs' claimed systemic illnesses include autoimmune and connective tissue disorders. Both sets of claims require intricate expert scientific testimony.
Justice Joan Lobis, New York Supreme Court, New York County, was assigned to supervise preparation for all breast implant cases filed in New York State Supreme Court; Judge Harold Baer, Jr., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, was assigned all cases pending in the Southern District; and Senior Judge Jack B. Weinstein, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, was assigned all cases pending in the Eastern District. The three judges met together with federal magistrate judges assigned to these cases in chambers and en banc in the New York Supreme Court courthouse and in the Southern and Eastern District courthouses to consider expediting disposition.
The parties have estimated that thousands of breast implant cases may shortly be transferred to New York state and federal courts. To avoid a serious judicial emergency the three judges and two magistrate judges agreed with all counsel that they would need to carry forward expeditiously the extraordinarily helpful work of Chief Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr., MDL-926 transferee judge, in completing preparation for trial, including coordinating local discovery, simplifying issues and setting cases for trial. See, e.g., Pretrial and Revised Case Management, Order No. 30, MDL-926, March 25, 1996.
An integrated Daubert hearing, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), was conducted by and on behalf of all plaintiffs and defense counsel in pending and projected cases. During the extensive evidentiary hearing the three judges and Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak presided together from the same bench, heard many witnesses, and received in evidence a large collection of documents and scientific papers. In addition, incorporated in the record were transcripts and documents from the Daubert hearings recently held in breast implant cases in other United States District Courts. See, e.g., Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. et. al., 92-182JO-Lead (D.Ore.).
The imaginative procedures and information developed by Judge Robert E. Jones in Oregon proved particularly helpful since they included evaluation by neutral experts appointed by Judge Jones. Chief Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. has appointed a national committee of experts pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It will probably be some time before this committee's important work will be completed.
We should not rush to judgment where new scientific theories are proposed that lack adequate support or refutation because they are so new. As Thomas S. Kuhn points out in The Structure of Scientific Revolution 52 (2d ed. 1970):
New and unsuspected phenomena are ... repeatedly uncovered by scientific research, and radical new theories have again and again been invented by scientists. History even suggests that the scientific enterprise has developed a uniquely powerful technique for producing surprises of this sort.
While plaintiffs' submissions can hardly be characterized as "revolutionary" in the sense that Kuhn uses this term, it may have the scintilla of plausibility that merits reservation of judgment while evaluation goes forward.
The plaintiffs submitted evidence suggesting a prima facie case as to at least one defendant that silicone breast implants were inadequately designed and manufactured and that they were sold without appropriate warnings. They also provided proof suggesting a prima case that deficiencies in the product caused ruptures and bleeding of the implants' contents, resulting in pain, inflammation and other local phenomena that required explanation in many cases and caused other damage.
The local disease resulting from the silicone breast implants was defined by one of plaintiffs' experts as follows:
There is a local disease associated with silicone implantation. This local disease includes but is not limited to: capsular contracture, breast pain, chest wall pain, axillary pain, pseudo myocardial infarction syndrome, mastitis, nipple discharge, axillary lymphadenopathy, peri-prosthetic nodules, silicone granulomas, foreign body reaction, myositis of the pectoral muscle, pruritic rashes over the breast and local morphea.
Plaintiffs' exhibit 507. In addition, other local symptoms were caused by mechanical and other problems associated with misshapen breasts and surgical operations to explant and reimplant.
The local diseases are separate and distinct from the claimed systemic diseases. As the plaintiffs' lead clinical expert testified:
Transcript 953-54.
The evidence of both defendants' and plaintiffs' experts supports the conclusion that the silicone implants at issue do not cause classical recognized diseases such as interstitial pulmonary fibrosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, or Sjogren's Syndrome. Experts also agreed that the breast implants did not exacerbate classic rheumatology or connective tissue diseases.
It was the position of plaintiffs' experts, controverted by those of defendant, that a new undifferentiated atypical disease associated with exposure to silicone was caused by silicone gel implants. The hundreds of symptoms associated with this undifferentiated disease, the lack of any acceptable agreed upon definition, the inadequacy of any satisfactory supporting epidemiological or animal studies, the lack of a scientifically acceptable showing of medical plausibility, and the questionable nature of the clinical conclusions of treating doctors, all point to a failure of proof in making a prima facie case that silicone implants cause any of the syndromes claimed except for local disease.
The deficiency of available proof would normally require a grant of summary judgement to defendants as to all but local symptoms. The national Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Dow Corning Corp., Bankruptcy No. 95-20512.
...against trying these issues before different juries."). Others have reached the same conclusion. See In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F.Supp. 958, 962 (E. & S.D.N.Y.1996) (collecting cases); see also 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2391 n. 6 (collecting This doe......
-
Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
...the Daubert decisions (or the particular State counterpart). See, e.g., Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., supra; In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F.Supp. 958 (E. & S.D.N.Y.1996); Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., supra. We also point out as well that a national panel of experts has been ap......
-
Pelman v. McDonald's Corp.
...of six million who took diet drugs (Pondimin and Redux) that were later linked to valvular heart disease); In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F.Supp. 958, 959-60 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (discussing possibility of transfer of thousands of cases alleging injuries from silicone breast implants). Public h......
-
Downs v. Perstorp Components, Inc.
...that the scientific enterprise has developed a uniquely powerful technique for producing surprises of this sort. In re: Breast Implant Cases, 942 F.Supp. 958, 960 (E.D.N.Y.1996). Plaintiffs initially point out that defendants do not challenge Dr. Kilburn's qualifications, but only his opini......
-
"Utterly ineffective": do courts have a role in improving the quality of forensic expert testimony?
...admitted), with In re Breast Implant Litig., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Colo. 1998) (expert excluded). (39.) In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F. Supp. 958, 960 (S.D.N.Y. (40.) INST. OF MED., SAFETY OF SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS I0-11 (Smart Bondurant et al., eds., 2000). (41.) The Multidistrict P......
-
Encouraging more effective use of court-appointed experts and technical advisors.
...41 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). See also Mediacom Corp. v. Rates Technology Inc., 4 F.Supp.2d 17 (D. Mass. 1998). (17.) In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F.Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (refusing to grant summary judgment where national Rule 706 panel had been appointed to evaluate claims of systemic disease......